click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20120928
20121006
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
warning world leaders that iran is very close to building nuclear weapons. in his speech to the u.n. general assembly on the threat posed by iran making headlines across the globe. leland vittert is live in jerusalem with reaction there. leland? >> reporter: gregg, the most interesting thing here is this is the first time the israeli prime minister has really laid out what would bring about an israelly strike. the first time there has been a true threat made. it is on the front page of every newspaper here. here it says the red line, spring 2013. when he did up at the u.n. draw that red line it was at the 90% mark, meaning right before iran began work on a nuclear bomb, when it completed the enrichment process. that was definitely a movement of the timeline. there had been a lot of talk about a possible strike sometime before the u.s. election. the speech at the united nations seems to have pushed that off a little bit. the prime minister made a very tough case against the iranians for supporting hamas and hezbollah, both organizations that used suicide bomb attacks around the world
in all these other areas. gregg: what white house press secretary jay carney and u.n. ambassador susan rice were telling the american people, not to mention the folks on capitol hill, was simply untrue. they were doing that for more than a week as we mentioned. now the latest offering up an explanation is general james clapper, the director of national intelligence. and here's his explanation and or excuse depending upon your point of view. we'll put it on the screen. in the immediate aftermath of the assault there was information that led us to assess that the attack began spontaneously following protests recaller that day at our embassy in cairo. do you buy that or is clapper being used trying to protech the president's reputation? what do you think? >> i think clapper has been wrong on several occasions. so there's a scramble to protect this narrative. i think the other really damaging piece here that he doesn't confront is that the state department clearly knew from ambassador stevens's cable that is the threat was growing and that ambassador stevens himself was worried about his s
groups. ambassador john bolton is former u.s. ambassador to the u.n. and fox news contributor. big picture here. what do you think the cost is to the united states on the world stage that we're continuing to discuss this infighting who knew what when and not going out and getting the people that committed this act? >> well, i think it shows that there's desorganization within the state department, within the administration, about exactly what happened and i think that is a signal of vulnerability potentially at other embassies in the middle east or around the world. i think the consequence we need most here we need to find the people who actually perpetrated the attack and either eliminate them or get them in custody and start questioning them. that's potentially on the way. of course the administration is leaking out today in the press that they're about to do that, another security violation while we're on the subject. but certainly the way the administration has handled itself in the aftermath of this tragedy has not covered it with glory. jenna: how would we appropriately go an
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)